The subject was cutting taxes on the rich. If we want to limit the discussion to the current environment and situation, and the proposals of cutting Capital Gains taxes to zero, and expanding the tax base at the same time (i.e. tax the poor), then it probably won't help the economy at all (or create jobs).

Agreed. Romney's idea to cut taxes at the same rate he's raising them is asinine. That's putting water into one side of the bucket and taking it out of the other. You can't simply redirect capital and think it's going to help. Central planning - no matter whose plan - doesn't work. You need to allow capital to flow more freely, thus creating MORE capital.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

So I guess if you don't have a job, and thus have no income, an income tax break is going to give you a job?! What?

The best way to get demand up is to have more people employed. There is NOT a lack of demand that's driving this recession, Keynes. Wants are unlimited. Pent up demand?! Lol! Companies are not afraid to hire because they're worried about selling off their pent up inventory first. They don't want to hire because they can afford it. The price of labor (with all the new regulations and unknowns) is too high.

You can't direct capital and think it's going to go where you want. The market directs capital in the most efficient manner. All you need to do is to take off the reigns. It doesn't matter which side of the bucket you put the water in.

Yes, if you have no income you don't get a tax break.

How do you get those people not working a job? What impact would a tax cut have on that was the question so that is what I tried to address. IF you wanted to use as a tool tax cuts, a tax cut to lower incomes would create more jobs than an identical tax cut for those at high incomes. That is my point.

It is not "targeting capital" since the people are free to spend their additional income on what they want and the market will decide where the money ultimately goes. It is targeting income levels. Why aren't companies hiring? Lack of money to borrow? No. Costs of borrowing are a low as they have ever been. It is lack of customers- sales of their goods and services. They won't hire until they see enough sales to justify hiring more people.

It does not address if taxes are good or what government should spend money on.

Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-01-2012 at 12:33 PM.

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

a tax cut to lower incomes would create more jobs than an identical tax cut for those at high incomes. That is my point.

You are wrong about that. That is my point. And I can't think of any evidence that would justify your conclusion. I know there's plenty of Keynesian-type theory that suggests that, but it's all theory. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't work that way. Politicians like to say that, too, because they can justify hadnouts to people who don't pay income taxes anyway, but it never works.

The identical size tax cut would have pretty much the same effect no matter which side it went to. However, the speed of the impact would be felt faster if it went to wealthier people. Only because the economic triggers would happen earlier because there are fewer of them. Which means fewer transactions of larger sizes.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

What do you think would make a tax cut on the wealthy move faster through the economy? What are the wealthy spending their money on? As an employer, what would encourage you to hire more people? Investment or demand for goods?

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

What do you think would make a tax cut on the wealthy move faster through the economy? What are the wealthy spending their money on? As an employer, what would encourage you to hire more people? Investment or demand for goods?

Demand is already there. You are talking about capital. The same amount of capital would move faster when fewer transactions take place. For example, if one person invests $1000 in a company, the company gets that money immediately. If 100 people buy something for $10, the benefit of this additional capital takes some time to accumulate. Still, the additional capital is $1000. But you can see the speed difference.

Please take a moment to read up on why your theory fails. Acala provided a link... I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure it will do the trick.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Agreed. Romney's idea to cut taxes at the same rate he's raising them is asinine. That's putting water into one side of the bucket and taking it out of the other. You can't simply redirect capital and think it's going to help. Central planning - no matter whose plan - doesn't work. You need to allow capital to flow more freely, thus creating MORE capital.

That's ridiculous.

What Romney wants to do is the exact opposite of redirecting capital: is stop the government from doing it by closing loopholes and tax expenditures via tax code reform.

And a well executed tax reform can allow a tax cut while keeping the government revenue neutral. Economy isn't a zero sum game.

a tax cut to lower incomes would create more jobs than an identical tax cut for those at high incomes. That is my point.

It is not "targeting capital" since the people are free to spend their additional income on what they want and the market will decide where the money ultimately goes. It is targeting income levels. Why aren't companies hiring? Lack of money to borrow? No. Costs of borrowing are a low as they have ever been. It is lack of customers- sales of their goods and services. They won't hire until they see enough sales to justify hiring more people.

It does not address if taxes are good or what government should spend money on.

No wonder you make so many posts supporting Obama/attacking Romney.

How do you know that "a tax cut to lower incomes would create more jobs than an identical tax cut for those at high incomes" anyway?

Interesting. There simply aren't enough goods in the market. People have the money to buy lots more stuff but can't find things to spend it on. They want more things. So if we make more cars we will sell more cars? If a company makes money on each car they sell and can sell more (since the demand is there) why don't they produce more cars? Their profits would increase and companies are all about increasing profits. GM should double production.

That must mean that savings are way up since they have unmet demand for more goods. Are they? Do people have more money to spend but not the goods to buy (since "demand for goods is already there").

The government made a sharp downward revision to fourth-quarter income figures Thursday, a sign of stagnant wages and a potential hurdle for consumer spending.

The figures, tucked in to the latest GDP report, show real disposable personal income–income minus taxes, adjusted for inflation–rose only 0.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with an earlier estimate of 1.7%. The change is largely due to lower-than-expected paychecks. Real first-quarter income was unrevised at a 0.4% gain.

The upshot: consumers are saving less in order to spend more. Consumer outlays rose a solid 2.1% in the fourth quarter and 2.7% in the first three months of this year.

But the personal savings rate for the first quarter dropped its lowest level since the start of the recession. Americans stashed away 3.6% of personal income in the first quarter, down from 4.2% in the fourth quarter and a near-term peak of 6.2% in the second quarter of 2009.

“With real wages and salaries now estimated to have grown at only a 0.7% annualized rate in [the fourth quarter and first quarter], and the saving rate revised down, the consumer is clearly in a weaker position than previously reported. Lower gasoline prices will help to cushion the blow, but, as always, the direction of the labor market will be the key variable in coming months,” Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., said in a research note.

The wage and salary revisions dragged down one measure of economic growth. Real gross domestic income, an alternative measure of growth which tallies the costs incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, was revised to a 2.6% growth rate in the fourth quarter, down 1.8 percentage points from the previous estimate. GDI was up 2.7% in the first quarter.

Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-01-2012 at 01:19 PM.

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

Zippy, did you read anything I posted or just the 1st four words? You are talking about capital to satisfy the demand.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

The proper metric to measure taxation is spending level. Every spent dollar will eventually be taxed, even if via inflation.

So, most of the discussions about taxation tend to be quite immaterial. Moreover, tax cuts can have diverse effects on economic growth depending on how they're financed, via spending cuts or through deficit. I'm extremely skeptic about tax cuts that need to be paid with borrowed money.

Tax revenue as a percentage of the GDP is around 16% right now. I'd welcome a deal that, at the cost of raising tax raises, would allow serious entitlement reform and decisive spending cuts (and this would be a true tax cut, because, again, taxes are measured by spending). Making every generation of taxpayers accountable for their own spending would be a significant step towards fiscal sanity. Something that would allow the budget to be balanced at 18% of the GDP in 10 years or something. This is my most optimistic dream, but I think it might be possible if the GOP wins the WH and a Senate majority in 2014.

(of course, I write this under the premise of a reality-based scenery - the US as of 2012 - not as a speculative and theoretical reasoning).

What Romney wants to do is the exact opposite of redirecting capital: is stop the government from doing it by closing loopholes and tax expenditures via tax code reform.

And a well executed tax reform can allow a tax cut while keeping the government revenue neutral. Economy isn't a zero sum game.

If you believe that is what Romney would really do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

Demand is already there. You are talking about capital. The same amount of capital would move faster when fewer transactions take place. For example, if one person invests $1000 in a company, the company gets that money immediately. If 100 people buy something for $10, the benefit of this additional capital takes some time to accumulate. Still, the additional capital is $1000. But you can see the speed difference.

Please take a moment to read up on why your theory fails. Acala provided a link... I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure it will do the trick.

Let me address the rest (which I did in my original post). The wealthy are more likely to put the money away and not spend it on goods. Lower income people are more likely to spend it on goods. Give a millionare another $1000 and that won't lead to $1000 in more demand for goods but give it to somebody making $30,000 and most of it will. Which is more likely to lead to companies hiring more people? Will the company want to borrow more money (getting a $1000 investment in the company) or if they sell $1000 more in goods? If they don't have the sales to justify it, they don't need the $1000 investment. Why aren't companies hiring today? Weak demand for goods - not lack of capital.

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

I take it you do not own a company. The cost of labor is too high. And there is no certainty about how high it is going to get in the future. You can't plan.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Again may I ask- if you run a company, what would make you more likely to hire more people- seeing sales increase or being able to borrow more money? It comes down to this. If you give a tax cut to the wealthy, it means more money put into investments. If you give a tax cut to lower incomes, it increases demand for goods since it is more likely to be spent. If you want to cut taxes as a means of increasing jobs, which would be more effective?

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

What you're saying makes sense in theory, but it doesn't work that way. Sure, if my business couldn't keep up with demand, I'd have to hire more people. UNLESS, hiring more people would put me out of business. I'd try to become as efficient as possible with the staff I have. Yeah, I could grow by adding a wing and hiring, but I can't make that leap because, 1. I don't have the investment capital, and 2. I don't know what's coming in the way of labor costs. I can't plan. The cost of labor has already risen and there is no way of knowing how much it's going to continue. I'm going to keep my businesses running as efficiently as possible until I get some certainty. Then, if I ever get that, I can start growing again.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

did we have certainty under gwb , no one was hiring , we were losing 700,000 jobs a month , no one knows what the future is for labor costs ( unless its in china ), i thing uncertainty is a very weak saying , the trouble with small business in america is they can not match the less than one dollar a hour in china , major banks understand this and fine it hard to loan them money , even when things were good in this country ( before trickle down econ ) about 80% of small business went broke in a couple years.

in all honestly the best time for labor and jobs was when the tax rate on high earners was about 90%, but one thing never heard was the 90% rate was on all income over about $3 million a year not the total earned , now they don't want to pay a extra 3% 0n any income over $1 million.

like i stated on a early post any time a headge fund mtg taxes his pay in the form of dividens and pays 15% tax , a ditch digger pays about 25% , anyone that thinks this is the way the tax system should work has a problem , they will vote for romryan , i all ready voted for gary johnson.

in all honestly the best time for labor and jobs was when the tax rate on high earners was about 90%.

Jesus Christ....

FYI, that never happened. It's just a fable invented by the left. Nobody was actually paying a 90% marginal rate (deductions to the collected income), let alone a 90% effective tax rate.

Originally Posted by ILUVRP

but one thing never heard was the 90% rate was on all income over about $3 million a year not the total earned , now they don't want to pay a extra 3% 0n any income over $1 million..

Don't you think politicians already have enough money in their hands?

Originally Posted by ILUVRP

like i stated on a early post any time a headge fund mtg taxes his pay in the form of dividens and pays 15% tax , a ditch digger pays about 25% , anyone that thinks this is the way the tax system should work has a problem , they will vote for romryan , i all ready voted for gary johnson.

He does? Where? That's a very well paid ditch digger. You need to earn an adjusted gross income above $500,000 to pay that in taxes.

I doubt there's a single ditch digger that is actually a net contributor to the fiscal system (net taxes = taxes paid less benefits received)

FYI, that never happened. It's just a fable invented by the left. Nobody was actually paying a 90% marginal rate (deductions to the collected income), let alone a 90% effective tax rate.

A marginal rate is not the average or effective rate. It is the tax rate applied to the last dollar earned- not to all dollars earned. In the 1940's and 1950's the marginal rate on top wage earners did indeed hit 90%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

As you point out, the marginal rate does not apply to every dollar earned and the average (or effective) tax rate is further reduced by deductions and exemption and may be significantly lower- and as ILUVRP points out, that rate only applied to the portion of the person's income which exceeded a certain level (say the cap was at $100k before the top rate kicked in- all income below $100k would be taxed at a lower rate and income above that figure was hit by the 90%. If you made $120k in this example (not true figures for what it was then but simply for illustrative purposes), then not $120k would be subject to the 90% tax rate but $20k of your income. With allowances and deductions, this year about 45% of income tax filers had an average tax rate of zero percent (they owed no income taxes).

According to the Department of Commerce, the median income in that year was $2,379. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-002.pdf Only 1.3% of the population made even $10,000 a year or more (a $10,000 income had a marginal rate of 45%) so an incredibly small number of people would have been hit by the 94% marginal rate. Marginal rate on the median income level was 13%.

The “exceedingly high” part of this question most likely refers to the federal income tax’s “confiscatory” top rates coming out of World War II, which the Eisenhower Administration left in place into the 1960s. During the war, the top “marginal rate” was 94%, but 94% of what? Then as now, income tax rates moved up at distinct break points. In this made-up example, consider a 15% rate up to $25,000, 21% from $25,000 to $50,000, and 25% over $50,000. Those making $50,001 or more won’t pay a quarter of their total income, but rather 15% of the first $25,000, 21% of the next $25,000, and 25% of everything above $50K. That’s why the system is called progressive - the percentage rate progresses upward with income, but the higher percentage applies only to new (marginal) income above each break point. In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation).

In World War Two, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944.

Very few individuals encountered this top rate, however. The actual proportion of earnings citizens paid as income taxes in 1945 was far lower: for the poorest 20% of Americans, 1.7%; for the next 20%, 6.2%; for the middle quintile, 8.9%, for the upper-middle 20%, 10%; and for the wealthiest quintile, 20.7%. Tax rates have fallen since then: the current top level is 35% of income above $357,000, or $30,000 in 1945 dollars. Then the median family income was $2,379 per year. Brackets also have simplified (24 in the 1950s, just six today), yet the federal government takes in far more revenue than 60 years ago and citizens complain hugely about being over-taxed. What has happened?

Three things, basically. First in World War II, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944, vastly broadening the tax base and increasing the total intake. Even so by 1975, the same five quintiles, bottom to top, were paying respectively just 0.6%, 4.7%, 8.8%, 11.2%, and 17.8% of their adjusted gross incomes to the IRS. Note that for four of the five groups, this percentage was lower than in 1945, with several waves of tax cuts following in recent decades. Second, other federal taxes increased substantially. In 1952, social security tax rates stood at 1.5% of pay, employers and workers each putting in this sum. The self-employed paid 2.25% of net income. These figures increased by 1970 to 4.2% each for workers and enterprises (6.2% for self-employeds), and to 6.2% each (and 12.4% for self-employeds) by 2010. Thus the share of earned income taxed increased fourfold or more since the early 1950s. As well, Medicare and Medicaid taxes appeared in the late 1960s and rose from half a percent then to nearly 1.5% now. Thus many Americans currently pay more for these retirement and medical coverages than they do in regular income taxes. But the biggest blow may have been the evidently sharp increase in state and local taxes since the 1970s. Rising from a national average of $800 per capita (multiply by the number of your family members) in 1977, these taxes neared $4,300 per person by 2008, rising 44% faster than inflation. The principal mechanisms employed by non-federal governments were wage and income taxes, property taxes, and a vast range of fees, all of which went to support public safety (police, fire), health, basic and higher education, roads and other infrastructures, courts, prisons, and the regulation of everyday life (deeds, inspections, voter registrations, licensing, et al.)

Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-01-2012 at 09:04 PM.

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

Has the notion of a consumption tax ever been bounced around here? I have given it some thought, and it seems to be a decent idea conceptually, but there would have to be some major restrictions on it. I don't want to see goods and services taxed all the way down the line. I am thinking back to my second business here which was a pizza shop. I wouldn't want to see all the ingredients to make a pizza taxed and then the final product taxed as well. I tend to think that only the consumable product should be taxed. So in that sense, I am thinking that businesses would only be taxed on products they buy as the end user, and not product that would go into the production of their product or service. Too complex?

Has the notion of a consumption tax ever been bounced around here? I have given it some thought, and it seems to be a decent idea conceptually, but there would have to be some major restrictions on it. I don't want to see goods and services taxed all the way down the line. I am thinking back to my second business here which was a pizza shop. I wouldn't want to see all the ingredients to make a pizza taxed and then the final product taxed as well. I tend to think that only the consumable product should be taxed. So in that sense, I am thinking that businesses would only be taxed on products they buy as the end user, and not product that would go into the production of their product or service. Too complex?

Lots of problems with a consumption tax. You're just highlighting one of them.
Another is that people who have already been taxed on their earnings would now also be taxed on their consumption. It's double taxation.

The idea sounds better than what we have now, but I think the ultimate goal should be to reduce the income tax to 0. We don't need new schemes to keep feeding the monster.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Lots of problems with a consumption tax. You're just highlighting one of them.
Another is that people who have already been taxed on their earnings would now also be taxed on their consumption. It's double taxation.

The idea sounds better than what we have now, but I think the ultimate goal should be to reduce the income tax to 0. We don't need new schemes to keep feeding the monster.

Right the ultimate goal is zero, but we have to have a means to get there. We cannot unravel 100 years of taxation overnight - that's libertarian fantasy land and not reality. By the way, in my consumption tax, we would eliminate the income tax, so you only get taxed on what you spend. But there are some problems with it - obviously enforcement since there is so much cash business taking place. And the issues of who or when the item is taxed is a huge problem, since there would have to be a book thicker than the current tax code to figure out what and when is taxed.

So scrap that the more I think on it.

I don't like taxing income either, since you run into the same issues there with double taxation, determining what is income and what is not, etc. Nonetheless, I think a flat tax of some sort is probably our best transition away from what we have now.

Ultimately, once we get spending under control a head tax wouldn't be a bad idea - that's what we did in the townships for years. A small amount of money per adult to pay for the small amount of gov't services provided (roads, defense, etc). But we are a long way from that, and I doubt we will see in in my lifetime or in the lifetime of many here.

By the way, in my consumption tax, we would eliminate the income tax, so you only get taxed on what you spend.

That's for people that are still earning an income. If you're retired and living off your savings, you've saved your whole life and got taxed the whole time. With a consumption tax, you will be taxed again.

Originally Posted by CaptLouAlbano

So scrap that the more I think on it.

Yeah, the more you dig into it, the more complicated it has to get. I liked it at first, too, until I saw all the problems.

Originally Posted by CaptLouAlbano

Nonetheless, I think a flat tax of some sort is probably our best transition away from what we have now.

Probably marginally better, but I still think the problem is spending. The taxation scheme doesn't really compare to the real problem. Once we have spending under control, I think we can look at the tax system, but it's kinda putting the cart in front of the horse.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

ILUVRP, there are a lot more variables that go into those numbers. Don't hang your hat on them.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Has the notion of a consumption tax ever been bounced around here? I have given it some thought, and it seems to be a decent idea conceptually, but there would have to be some major restrictions on it. I don't want to see goods and services taxed all the way down the line. I am thinking back to my second business here which was a pizza shop. I wouldn't want to see all the ingredients to make a pizza taxed and then the final product taxed as well. I tend to think that only the consumable product should be taxed. So in that sense, I am thinking that businesses would only be taxed on products they buy as the end user, and not product that would go into the production of their product or service. Too complex?

Let's say we wanted to try this. And to keep it from hurting lower incomes too badly we exclude food and food service industry from the National Sales Tax.

According to Federal Reserve figures, retail sales were $368 billon dollars for the month of September. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RSXFS Let's assume that this figure is the same every month for a year. That is $4.42 trillion a year. Let's also assume that we keep spending frozen where it is right now and want to balance the budget only using this sales tax for government revenue.

The 2012 US budget shows expenditures to be $3.8 trillion. That would require a national sales tax of 86% on everything aside from foods and food service industries. Naturally if you instituted that huge of a tax on everything demand would plumet and you would need an even higher tax rate to collect the same revenues so easily over 100% would be necessary.

In the past, some have suggested tariffs instead. Using the same limitations (only tax source and a balanced budget) that would require a 200% tariff or a tripling of the cost of every imported item (including oil).

"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate." Rand Paul.

Rich people do not keep their money in their mattresses. They have it invested in the economy. In other businesses. In their own businesses.
If you rob their wealth to feed the government, that's more money taken out of the economy. Fewer jobs.

People invest where they think they can get the most return. It sends proper signals to the market. Government screws up the signals and wealth is misallocated.

I've been trying to break this down in the simplest form possible.

OK, I grant you they don't keep ALL THEIR money in mattresses. But the opposite is true too, they don't invest ALL their money in job creation. If it were the case that the rich always or mostly always invests in job creation and economy stimulation, than trickle down theory would be true, and bailing out the rich would always be the right thing to do.

Some do, some don't, it's got a lot to do with opportunities available, and their personal goals, little to do with how much money they have. Rich people may have lots of ABILITY to invest and help the economy, but not always the DESIRE TO. People don't want to tax the rich because they like stealing, they only do so because they believe the rich are not spending it the right way. If the rich (any rich) were either throwing money around to charity or creating more jobs than we need, they'd be loved, not hated, and encouraged, not asked to be taxed.